RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/55  
 
22 August 2019  
(19-5423) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Safeguards    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 29 APRIL  2019  
CHAIR PERSON : MR HYOUK WOO KWON (R EPUBLIC OF KOREA)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 29 April 2019.  
2.  At the outset, Mauritius  requested that item 3 included in the draft agenda1 be deleted from the 
final agenda, as it would make its statement under another agenda item. The Republic of Korea  
("Korea") stated that it wished to make a statement under Other Business regarding an inv estigation 
by the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union and regarding another investigation by 
Turkey. The Russian Federation  ("Russia") stated that it wished to make a statement under Other 
Business regarding an investigation by Turkey. The Chair stated that he wished to raise two issues 
under Other Business: (i) deadline for placing items on the agenda of Committee meetings and 
(ii) the notification handbook.  
3.  The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   NATIONAL LEGISLA TION ................................ ................................ ..............................  3 
1.1   Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Exi sting Provisions Not 
Previously Reviewed) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  3 
1.1.1    Angola – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/AGO/1)  ................................ . 3 
1.1.2    Brazil – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4 and 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
1.1.3    Madagascar – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/MDG/2) ..........................  3 
1.1.4    United Arab Emirates – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1)  . 4 
1.1.5    Viet Nam – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 and 
G/SG/N/1/VNM/2/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
1.2   Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  ................................ .....................  4 
1.2.1   Afghanistan – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications (G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  .... 4 
1.2.2    Brazil – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications (G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4)  . 4 
1.2.3    Cambodia – Continuing review of previously reviewed notification s (G/SG/N/1/KHM/2)  ...... 4 
1.2.4    Cameroon – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
1.2.5    El Salvador – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF  ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ............................  5 
2.1   Canada – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/CAN/4 – G/SG/N/7/CAN/1 – G/SG/N/11/CAN/1 
and G/SG/N/7/CAN/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/CAN/3)  ................................ ...............................  6 
2.2   Chile – Powdered Milk and Gouda Cheese (G/SG/N/9/CHL/12)  ................................ ...........  6 
                                                
1 Circulated in document WTO/AIR/SG/9.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3   Colombia – Sheets of Cardboard and Polyethylene (G/SG/N/6/COL/8)  ................................  6 
2.4   Egypt – Semi-finishe d Products of Iron or Non -alloy Steel and Steel Rebar (Bars, Rods and 
Coils) For Construction Purposes (G/SG/N/6/EGY/14 – G/SG/N/7/EGY/11 – G/SG/N/11/EGY/11)  ... 6 
2.5   Member Countries of the Eurasian Economic Union – Microwave Ovens (G/SG/N/6/ARM/4 – 
G/SG/N/6/KAZ/2 – G/SG/N/6/KGZ/8 – G/SG/N/6/RUS/6)  ................................ .........................  7 
2.6   Member Countries of the Eurasian Economic Union – Welded Tubes of Stainless Steel 
(G/SG/N/6/ARM/5 – G/SG/N/6/KAZ/3 – G/SG/N/6/KGZ/9 – G/SG/N/6/RUS/7)  ...........................  7 
2.7   European Union – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/8/EU/1 – G/SG/N/10/EU/1 – 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/8/EU/1/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 
2.8   Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf "GCC" Chemical Plasticizers 
(G/SG/N/10/ARE/2 – G/SG/N/11/ARE/3 – G/SG/N/10/BHR/2 – G/SG/N/11/BHR/3 – 
G/SG/N/10/KWT/2 – G/SG/N/11/KWT/3 – G/SG/N/10/OMN/2 – G/SG/N/11/OMN/3 – 
G/SG/N/10/QAT/2 – G/SG/N/11/QAT/3 – G/SG/N/10/SAU/2 – G/SG/N/11/SAU/3)  ......................  9 
2.9   India – Solar Cells (G/L/1277 – G/SG/192) – Joint communication of India and Chinese  Taipei
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  9 
2.10   Indonesia – Aluminium Foil (G/SG/N/6/IDN/29 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/21 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/21)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  9 
2.11   Indonesia – Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non -alloy Steel (G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.4)  ..... 9 
2.12   Jordan – Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.6)  ..........................  9 
2.13   Madagascar – Detergent Powder (G/SG/N/6/MDG/3 – G/SG/N/7/MDG/3 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/3, G/SG/N/6/MDG/3/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/7/MDG/3/Corr.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/3/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/7/MDG/3/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/3/Suppl.1)  .............  9 
2.14   Madagascar – Pasta (G/S G/N/7/MDG/1 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/1 and G/SG/N/6/MDG/1/Suppl.1 
– G/SG/N/7/MDG/1/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ......................  9 
2.15   Madagascar – Blankets and Travelling Rugs (G/SG/N/7/MDG/2 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/2, 
G/SG/N/7/MDG/2/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/2/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/7/MDG/2/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................  10 
2.16   Morocco – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.4 – 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.4 – G/SG/N/14/MAR/1/Suppl.3)  ................................ ......................  10 
2.17   Morocco – Cold-Rolled Sheets in Coils or Cut, and Plated or Coated Sheets 
(G/SG/N/8/MAR/4/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/Suppl.3)  .............  10 
2.18   Morocco – Paper in Rolls and Reams (G/SG/N/8/MAR/5 – G/SG/N/10/MAR/5 – 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  11 
2.19   Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/7/PHL/9 – G/SG/N/8/PHL/10 – G/SG/N/11/PHL/11)  ..........  11 
2.20   Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/6/PHL/12)  ................................ ....... 11 
2.21   Philippines – Float Glass (G/SG/N/6/PHL/13)  ................................ ................................  11 
2.22   South Africa – Threaded Fasteners of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/7)  ............................  11 
2.23   South Africa – Other Screws Fully Threaded with Hexagon Heads Made of Steel 
(G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5 – G/SG/N/10/ZAF/4 – G/SG/N/11/ZAF/4/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5/Suppl.1 
– G/SG/N/10/ZA F/4/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/11/ZAF/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ..................  12 
2.24   Thailand – Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products with Certain Amounts of Alloying Elemen ts 
(G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/14/THA/2/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Suppl.4 – 
G/SG/N/14/THA/2/Suppl.3) ................................ ................................ ................................ . 12 
2.25   Turkey – Yarn of Nylon or Other Polyamides (G/SG/N/6/TUR/25)  ................................ ... 12 
2.26   Ukraine – Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/6/UKR/11/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 
2.27   United States - Crystalline Silic on Photovoltaic Cells (G/L/1293 – G/SG/202) – Joint 
communication of Thailand and the United States  ................................ ................................ .. 12 G/SG/M/55  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.28   United States – Large R esidential Washers (G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.1 and G/L/1292 – 
G/SG/201)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  13 
2.29   Viet Nam – Monosodium Glutamate (G/L/1286 – G/SG/N/13 /VNM/2) – Results of Mid -Term 
Review  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  13 
2.30   Viet Nam – Certain Semi -Finished and Finished Products of Alloy and Non-Alloy Steel 
(G/L/1287 – G/SG/N/13/VNM/3) – Results of Mid -Term Review  ................................ ...............  13 
3   MOROCCO'S SAFEGU ARD INVESTIGATION ON  COATED WOOD BOA RD (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION)  ................................ ................................ .........  13 
4   NOTIFICATIONS OF  RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPOSE A MEASURE  .............................  13 
5   DISCUSSION GROUP  REGARDING SAFEGUARD  PROCEEDINGS (ITEM R EQUESTED BY 
12 MEMBERS)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  15 
6   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16 
6.1   Statement Regarding an Investigation by the member countries of the Eurasian Economic 
Union and by Turkey – Item Requested by Korea  ................................ ................................ ... 16 
6.2   Statement Regarding an Investigation  by Turkey – Item Requested by Russia  ...................  16 
6.3   Deadline for placing items on the airgram for the meeting – Statement by the Chair  ..........  16 
6.4   Notification Handbook – Statement by the Chair  ................................ .............................  16 
7   DATE OF NEXT REG ULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ .............  17 
8   ELECTION OF OFFI CERS  ................................ ................................ .............................  17 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of Notif ications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   Angola – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/AGO/1)  
4.  There were  no comments or questions raised at this meeting.  
1.1.2   Brazil – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4 and 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.5)  
5.   The Chair  stated that written questions had been received from Ukraine in document 
G/SG//Q1/BRA/8, from the United States ("US") in documents G/SG/Q1/BRA/9 and 
G/SG/Q1/BRA/10, and from the Dominican Republic in document G/SG/Q1/BRA/11. He also stated 
that the US re quested that the review of its questions be taken up at the meeting of the Committee 
on Anti -Dumping Practices ("Anti -Dumping Committee").  
6.  Brazil  stated that it had already submitted answers to the Secretariat.  
1.1.3   Madagascar – Review of New Legislative Noti fication (G/SG/N/1/MDG/2)  
7.  The Chair  stated that written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/MDG/1 and Madagascar had responded to these questions in document G/SG/Q1/MDG/2.  
8.  The US thanked Madagascar for its legislative notification and responses to the questions. It 
would review and submit follow -up questions, if necessary.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.1.4   United Arab E mirates – Review of New Legislative Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1)  
9.  The Chair  stated that written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/ARE/3.  
10.  The United Arab Emirates  ("UAE") explained that the full text of the non -official Eng lish 
translation of the Federal Law and Rules of Implementation were enclosed in the relevant notification 
for ease of reference, and the official Arabic version of the text was publicly available, with the link 
indicated in the footnotes.  
11.  The US thanked UAE for its legislative notification and stated that it was looking forward to 
written replies to the questions.  
12.  The UAE stated that the answers were being prepared.  
1.1.5   Viet Nam – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 and 
G/SG/N/1/VNM/2/Cor r.1) 
13.  The Chair stated that written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/N/1/VNM/3.  
14.  Viet Nam  stated that responses had been submitted to the Secretariat recently.2  
15.  The US thanked Viet Nam for the responses. It would review them and subm it follow -up 
questions in writing, if necessary. In addition, the US pointed out a jump in Article numbers and 
Chapter numbers on pages 57 to 58 of the notification.  
16.  Viet Nam  stated that it would review the issue.  
1.2  Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed  Notifications  
1.2.1   Afghanistan – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  
17.  The Chair stated that this legislative notification was first reviewed at the spring 2017 meeting, 
and that written questions received from the US in docum ent G/SG/Q1/AFG/1 were left unanswered.  
18.  Afghanistan  stated that it was in contact with the capital and would share the answers with the 
Committee once received.  
1.2.2   Brazil – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4)  
19.  The Chair  announced that this item was a duplicate of agenda item 1.1.2, and so he would not 
open the floor for this item.  
1.2.3   Cambodia – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/KHM/2)  
20.  The Chair  stated that this legislative notification w as reviewed at the autumn 2018 meeting, 
and that written questions had subsequently been received from the US in document 
G/SG/N/1/KHM/1.  
21.  Cambodia  stated that the answers were being prepared.  
                                                
2 See document G/ADP/Q1/VNM/4 –G/SCM/Q1/VNM/4 –G/SG/Q1/VNM/4.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.2.4   Cameroon – Continuing review of previously reviewed notificati ons 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
22.  The Chair  stated that this legislative notification was first reviewed at the autumn 2014 meeting, 
and that written questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 were left unanswered.  
23.  Cameroon  was not present at the meeting.  
1.2.5   El Salvador – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1)  
24.  The Chair stated that this legislative notification was first reviewed at the spring 2017 meeting, 
and that written questions re ceived from the US in document G/SG/Q1/SLV/7 and from Mexico in 
document G/SG/Q1/SLV/8 were left unanswered.   
25.  El Salvador  stated that the authorities were drafting the responses.  
26.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any l egislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 20 May 2019. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, including 
questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 11 June 2019.  
27.  The Chair reminded Members that the exchange of written questi ons and answers constituted 
the Committee's only record of review of legislations. Failure to respond to written questions or 
responding long after conclusion of the meeting in which the review took place resulted in the records 
of the Committee being left  incomplete.  
28.  The Chair informed the Committee that 20 Members had not yet made a legislative notification.3 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Agreement on Safeguards 
("Agreement"). Members that did not yet have legislation need  only submit a simple "nil" notification.  
29.  The US stated that many Members had not yet submitted a notification. For nearly all of those 
who had not made a notification, their Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether they did or did 
not have any SG le gislation. The US reiterated that the notification was simple if there was no 
legislation and encouraged Members who had not yet made their legislative notifications to review 
their situations and to make the applicable notification. The US encouraged Memb ers to think 
creatively how to improve compliance with notification obligations. It had submitted a proposal to 
the Council for Trade in Goods4, which sought to address the issue of missing notifications across 
various Committees. Argentina, Australia, Can ada, Costa Rica, EU, Japan, New Zealand and 
Chinese  Taipei were now co -sponsors of the updated version of this proposal. The US continued to 
be interested in hearing Members' ideas on this proposal.  
30.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  NOTIFICA TIONS OF ACTIONS REL ATED TO SAFEGUARD ME ASURES5 
31.  Japan  was concerned over the increasing use, by developing and developed economies, of trade 
restrictive measures such as safeguards ("SG") in the steel and relevant sectors. Responding to 
trade restrictive measures with retaliatory measures would depress world  trade and would harm 
exporters and importers. All Members should avoid implementing WTO -inconsistent trade restrictive 
measures. Members should resort to SG measures only when the prerequisites defined under the 
WTO agreements were clearly met. Japan aske d the Committee to continue monitoring SG 
investigations closely.  
32.  Korea  raised concerns over the sharp increase in SG measures, particularly in the steel sector, 
and stated that many of the measures being imposed failed to meet the stringent procedural an d 
                                                
3 These Members were: Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic 
of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda,  Saint Kitts 
and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga and Yemen.  
4 JOB/GC/204/Rev.1 –JOB/CTG/14/Rev.1.  
5 Given the number of related documents, note that not all documents that appeared under a specifi c 
agenda item in the Airgram (WTO/AIR/SG/9) are referenced in the subtitles of this minutes.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 6 - 
 
  substantive requirements stipulated in the various WTO rules. The number of countries implementing 
SG measures were growing rapidly because countries were reacting to measures applied by other 
countries. Given that steel is a vital input in the supply ch ain for many industries, Korea was 
concerned that various downstream industries would be hit by such measures. Korea requested 
Members to exercise restraint in applying SG measures.  
33.  Australia  noted that Members often only became aware of mid -term reviews after the event, 
namely, following a notification that a mid -term review had been conducted and a decision made to 
continue measures. Australia reminded Members that SG measures were applied to imports of fairly 
traded goods and were emergency actions subj ect to strict conditions. While Australia appreciated 
the fact that Members' practices varied, Australia noticed that, for example, some Members notified 
the imposition of a provisional measure at the same time as the notification of the initiation of an 
investigation. In some of such instances, those Members imposed provisional measures that 
ultimately did not result in imposition of final measures. Australia was of the view that such actions 
disrupted trade and lessened predictability.  
34.  The Separate Custo ms Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei")  
reminded Members that the SG instrument was unique among the trade remedy instruments since 
it is not applied against unfair trade, and asked Members to strictly abide by the Agreement.   
2.1  Canada – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/CAN/4 – G/SG/N/7/CAN/1 – 
G/SG/N/11/CAN/1 and G/SG/N/7/CAN/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/CAN/3)  
35.  Canada  explained its notifications, in particular, that the imposition of SG measures required a 
Cabinet decision. In this cas e, the Minister of Finance announced that he planned to recommend 
that the Government impose final safeguards on two products, as recommended by the CITT. 
Canada would notify the final decision to the Committee when it is made.  
36.  Japan  referred to the repor t released by CITT in early April which indicated that the investigation 
did not cover certain countries with which Canada had signed an Economic Partnership Agreement. 
Japan stated that the Agreement provided that SG measures shall be applied to a product  being 
imported irrespective of the source. In this context, the adoption of an import -restrictive measure 
in a targeted, reciprocal manner was questionable. Japan requested Canada to ensure that the 
decision to impose SG measures would be taken in a manne r consistent with the WTO agreements.  
37.  Korea  stated that according to the recent recommendation released by the CITT, the scope of 
products covered under the definitive SG measure would be significantly narrowed down compared 
to the provisional measure, and  countries affected by this measure would be reduced. The efforts 
made by Canada were welcome. Korea requested Canada to terminate the measure relating to 
products on which CITT did not make a recommendation.  
38.  Canada  stated that it was mindful of the rules  relating to the application of SG measures.  
2.2  Chile – Powdered Milk and Gouda Cheese (G/SG/N/9/CHL/12)  
39.  New Zealand  welcomed the termination of the investigation.  
2.3  Colombia – Sheets of Cardboard and Polyethylene (G/SG/N/6/COL/8)  
40.  There were no comments or qu estions raised at the meeting.  
2.4  Egypt – Semi -finished Products of Iron or Non -alloy Steel and Steel Rebar (Bars, Rods 
and Coils) For Construction Purposes (G/SG/N/6/EGY/14 – G/SG/N/7/EGY/11 – 
G/SG/N/11/EGY/11)  
41.  Egypt  explained its notification and stated that it had received several reque sts for registration 
as interested parties. A hearing would be held in June.  
42.  Ukraine  was concerned with this investigation. First, it noted that for the purpose of the analysis 
of increased imports and injury, Egypt used data of two years prior to the init iation of the 
investigation. In Ukraine's view, the investigating authorities needed to collect data for at least a G/SG/M/55  
 
- 7 - 
 
  three -year period. Data for a longer period would have demonstrated a decrease in imports and 
would not have justified the imposition of a p rovisional measure. Second, Ukraine was concerned 
with Egypt imposing different levels of provisional duties for the two products. Egypt had not 
considered import trends separately for each of the products. There were insufficient grounds for 
the impositio n of a provisional SG measure. Ukraine urged Egypt to act in line with the Agreement.  
43.  In terms of the first concern, Egypt  explained that the situation surrounding the steel industry 
changed in March 2018 due to an imposition of duties by a certain Member . That resulted in a 
situation where exports from a Member with over -capacity had to find new markets. Egypt did not 
charge import duties for the products in question, and therefore a sudden increase of imports of this 
product occurred. This was the reason  for the specific period used for the analysis in the 
investigation. For the second concern, Egypt explained that it sought to take into account the 
difference between the two types of products in calculating the import duties.  
44.  Pakistan  stated that the pr erequisite stipulated in the Agreement for imposing a SG measure 
was that as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred by a 
Member the subject product is being imported in an injurious manner. Such prerequisite neede d to 
be met before imposing any measure, including a provisional measure.  
2.5  Member Countries of the Eurasian Economic Union – Microwave Ovens 
(G/SG/N/6/ARM/4 – G/SG/N/6/KAZ/2 – G/SG/N/6/KGZ/8 – G/SG/N/6/RUS/6)  
45.  Russia  stated that the investigation was termin ated and that would be notified promptly.  
46.  Japan  stated that while the investigation was initiated on 1 March 2019 and notified domestically 
on the same date, the notification from Russia to the Committee was submitted only on 
19 March  2019. Japan further noted that separate notifications were filed by Armenia, Kazakhstan 
and Kyrgyz Republic and they were all notified more than one month after the actual initiation. Japan 
asked the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union to respect the requirement s tipulated 
in Article  3.1 of the Agreement so that interested parties could meaningfully present evidence and 
views. Japan further asked the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union to comply with all 
requirements under the WTO agreements.  
47.  Russia  stressed that it strived to ensure transparency. In relation to comments by Japan, Russia 
explained that Japan was informed three days after the initiation of the investigation, with the verbal 
note being sent to the Embassy of Japan in Moscow. Japan had reg istered as an interested party 
and had all the opportunities to defend its rights.  
2.6  Member Countries of the Eurasian Economic Union – Welded Tubes of Stainless Steel 
(G/SG/N/6/ARM/5 – G/SG/N/6/KAZ/3 – G/SG/N/6/KGZ/9 – G/SG/N/6/RUS/7)  
48.  Ukraine  requested the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union to explain the delay 
in submitting the initiation notification.  
49.  Russia  stated that it had taken all the necessary steps to duly fulfil WTO obligations and would 
submit responses if written que stions were submitted.  
50.  The European Union  ("EU") stated that SG measures should only be imposed in exceptional 
circumstances and upon meeting the strict WTO conditions. In the present case, however, imports 
had decreased significantly at the end of the per iod analysed and therefore, the necessary conditions 
were not met. Further, the domestic industry could not have suffered serious injury as most 
economic indicators demonstrated a positive trend. Any difficulties faced by the domestic industry 
were due to other factors such as decrease in demand or dramatic increase of investments. Thus, 
the conditions for the imposition of a measure were not met. The EU asked that this investigation 
be terminated without any measure.  
51.  Russia  stated that the investigation w as underway and that all interested parties could present 
views and comments to the investigating authority.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.7  European Union – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/8/EU/1 – G/SG/N/10/EU/1 – 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/8/EU/1/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.2)  
52.  The EU explained the notification and further stated that it was currently conducting 
consultations with certain Members. Results of the consultations would be duly notified to the 
Committee.  
53.  Russia  was disappointed with the EU's  imposition of a definitive SG measure. First, it pointed 
out the lack of evidence demonstrating increased imports. Analysis of the data from the latest three 
years demonstrated that imports of certain categories of products were relatively stable, had 
fluctuated or even declined. Second, the quantity of imported products did not seem to be injurious 
to the EU industry. Russia had thus notified its proposed suspension of substantially equivalent 
concessions or other obligations to imports from the EU. Russi a asked the EU to ensure that its 
measure was consistent with WTO rules and to strive to make the measure less trade -restrictive. 
Members needed to engage in collective efforts to overcome the current challenges rather than 
impose new trade barriers.  
54.  Japan understood that there would be a review of this measure before July 2019. Japan hoped 
that the views of importers and users of steel products in the EU would be appropriately taken into 
consideration.  
55.  Korea  recognized the EU's efforts to ensure the pres ervation of traditional import levels from 
trading partners. Nevertheless, Korea was still not convinced that the definitive measure 
implemented was in full compliance with WTO rules. Korea requested the EU to withdraw the 
measure, or at least to review th e mechanism of the SG measure, for example, by expanding the 
tariff rate quotas. Korea hoped that the upcoming review process would be an opportunity to 
reassess the legality and effectiveness of the measure.  
56.  Switzerland  regretted the EU's decision to imp ose the measure. Escalation of measures in the 
steel sector should be avoided, since trade restrictive measures do not resolve the problem of global 
excessive capacity. The EU's measure was a restriction on exporters from Switzerland and its 
customers in t he EU. Switzerland reminded Members that introduction of SG measures should only 
be to the extent necessary. Bilateral trade flows not causing or threatening to cause serious injury 
to the EU industry should not be restricted by imposition of such measures .  
57.  Turkey  had concerns over this investigation. Turkey noted that the EU had repeatedly stated 
that the aim of the measure was to maintain traditional trade flows. However, the application of 
individual tariff rate quotas to exporter countries could destro y competition between exporters and 
distort the European steel market. Turkey asked the EU to take its concerns into consideration.  
58.  China  was concerned about the EU's measure as well as the sharp increase of SG measures 
taken in the steel sector. Many of t he measures were reactions to trade diversion caused by trade 
restrictive measures taken by other Members. SG measures affected fair trade, and they were 
emergency actions. Thus, Members should avoid resorting to such measures unless the requirements 
were strictly met. China requested the EU to conduct a mid -term review with respect to its 
determination as soon as possible.  
59.  The EU invited all Members to actively participate in the forthcoming review.  
60.  The US referred to the joint notification submitted by the EU and Turkey regarding the results 
of their consultations. In this respect, the US asked the EU whether notifications on the outcomes 
of other consultations were forthcoming.  
61.  The EU explained that it would submit notifications regarding the consultat ions with Brazil, 
India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Moldova, North Macedonia, Russia and Switzerland.6  
                                                
6 Subsequently circulated as G/L/1308, G/L/1316, G/L/1314, G/L/1312, G/L/1309, G/L/1310, G/L/1311, 
G/L/1317 and G/L/1315, respectively.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.8  Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf "GCC" Chemical Plasticizers 
(G/SG/N/10/ARE/2 – G/SG/N/11/ARE/3 – G/SG/N/10/BHR/2 – G/SG/N/11/BHR/3 – 
G/SG/N/10/KWT/2 – G/SG/N/11/KWT/3 – G/SG/N/10/OMN/2 – G/SG/N/11/OMN/3 
– G/SG/N/10/QAT/2 – G/SG/N/11/QAT/3 – G/SG/N/10/SAU/2 – G/SG/N/11/SAU/3)  
62.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.9  India – Solar Cells (G/L/1277 – G/SG/192)  – Joint communication of India and 
Chinese  Taipei  
63.  Japan  pointed out that it was inappropriate to impose SG measures on imported products that 
differed from Indian domestic products in terms of price and usage. Japan requested India to review 
the measure i mmediately and to exclude products that differed from domestic products.  
64.  India took note of Japan's statement and stated that it would talk bilaterally with Japan . 
2.10  Indonesia – Aluminium Foil (G/SG/N/6/IDN/29 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/21 – 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/21)  
65.  Japan  acknowledged that Indonesia had appropriately excluded imports which did not compete 
with Indonesian domestic products due to differences in price or usage. Japan would pay close 
attention to the developments of this investigation.  
66.  Korea  was concerned with this SG measure. This measure did not fully meet the requirements 
under WTO rules, especially given that there was a recent reduction in import volumes. Further, due 
to the tight schedule of the investigation, Korean exporters wer e not given adequate opportunities 
to defend their interests. Korea had already expressed concerns in this regard, through public 
hearings and by an official letter sent in November 2018. Bilateral consultations were held in 
February 2019. Korea asked Indo nesia to withdraw the proposed SG measure as soon as possible 
or at least take steps to minimize the negative impact of the measure.  
67.  Indonesia  explained that the final findings were based on the overall environment in which the 
domestic industry was situa ted, and on the negative trends of the injury indicators. Indonesia further 
stated that the process to finalise the imposition of the measure was still underway.  
2.11  Indonesia – Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non -alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.4)  
68.  There w ere no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.12  Jordan – Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.6)  
69.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.13  Madagascar – Detergent Powder (G/SG/N/6/MDG/3 – G/SG/N/7/MDG/3 – 
G/SG/N/11 /MDG/3, G/SG/N/6/MDG/3/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/7/MDG/3/Corr.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/3/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/7/MDG/3/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/3/Suppl.1)  
70.  Madagascar  explained that it needed further internal legal authorization before the provisional 
measure would come into eff ect. It also noted that several interested parties had made submissions, 
and that consultations were held with Indonesia on 18 March 2019. The investigation was in its final 
stages and Madagascar hoped to complete it by May 2019.  
2.14  Madagascar – Pasta (G/SG/ N/7/MDG/1 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/1 and 
G/SG/N/6/MDG/1/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/7/MDG/1/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.1)  
71.  Mauritius  was concerned about Madagascar's investigation and the imposition of a provisional 
measure. The measure was not justified under the Agreeme nt. While it appreciated the responses 
submitted by Madagascar, the answers did not address the queries. In the notification of initiation G/SG/M/55  
 
- 10 - 
 
  of the investigation, filed in October 2018, Madagascar listed only two tariff lines relating to pasta 
as the product  subject to investigation. However, in the subsequent notification of January 2019 
notifying the imposition of a provisional measure, four tariff lines including noodles, which were not 
included in the October 2018 notification, were identified. Subsequent ly, Madagascar filed another 
notification in February 2019 retroactively modifying the products set out in the initial notification. 
Mauritius was of the view that it was necessary to first define the product scope in conducting an 
investigation. However, in the current context, the reverse of this process had been adopted. 
Subsequent corrections could not rectify the failure to initially notify the product being investigated. 
It further pointed out that because the change of scope was made many months afte r the initial 
investigation, exporters were unable to understand the impact of the investigation on their interests. 
This problem could not be undone with subsequent corrections. Madagascar would need to conduct 
separate investigations for noodles and past a. Given that these were two products which were 
neither like nor directly competitive, any final determination of serious injury purported to exist could 
not be sustained. Furthermore, increase of imports of instant noodles to Madagascar was predictable. 
Such imports created a healthy competitive situation for Madagascar's producers, and did not cause 
injury. The investigation did not establish any causal link. Madagascar was a major export market 
for Mauritius' instant noodles, and the unjustified SG duty  would wipe out exports from Mauritius, 
which, in turn, would be detrimental to the industry and dependent sectors. Mauritius would carefully 
examine the final determination and reserve the right to take necessary action.  
72.  Egypt  expressed its concerns with  this SG measure on four grounds. First, there was no 
significant or sudden increase in imports of pasta. Second, economic factors relevant to the domestic 
industry had improved, and there was no serious injury to the domestic industry. There were other 
causes of injury to the domestic industry, which included the exchange rate fluctuation that impacted 
prices of imported raw materials, increase in fuel and electricity prices, and high cost of labour. 
Third, unforeseen developments identified in the notific ation did not meet the requirements set out 
in Article XIX of the GATT  1994. Fourth, the product scope initially consisted of two items and the 
investigating authority later added another two items to the investigation. Thus, the initiation and 
imposition of a provisional SG measure was inconsistent with WTO rules. In this context, Egypt 
requested Madagascar to terminate the provisional measure and to decide not to apply any definitive 
measure.  
73.  Madagascar  stated that all concerns raised at this meeting wou ld be taken into consideration in 
the final decision, which was to be made around May 2019. Madagascar was willing to engage in 
consultations with relevant countries.  
2.15  Madagascar – Blankets and Travelling Rugs (G/SG/N/7/MDG/2 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/2, G/SG/N/7/MD G/2/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/2/Corr.1 and 
G/SG/N/7/MDG/2/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/2/Suppl.1)  
74.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.16  Morocco – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.4 – 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.4 – G/SG/N/14/MA R/1/Suppl.3)  
75.  The Chair  stated that Ukraine's questions dealt with agenda items 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18.  
76.  Morocco  stated that the questions from Ukraine were submitted late, and that those questions 
were still being examined. The responses would be communicated  as soon as possible.  
77.  Ukraine , referring to Morocco's SG measures as taken up in agenda items 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18, 
explained that each of these notifications contained a list of developing countries excluded from the 
measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of th e Agreement. In this context, Ukraine requested Morocco to 
explain the methodology used to determine which country should be excluded from the measure.  
2.17  Morocco – Cold-Rolled Sheets in Coils or Cut, and Plated or Coated Sheets 
(G/SG/N/8/MAR/4/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/Suppl.3 – 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/Suppl.3)  
78.  The EU took the floor to comment on the two agenda items of 2.16 and 2.17. In general, the 
EU was concerned with Morocco's frequent use of the SG instrument. SG is only intended for G/SG/M/55  
 
- 11 - 
 
  exceptional circumstances and should only be applied in strict compliance with WTO rules. The EU 
had already pointed out in earlier meetings the shortcomings of these two investigations. In the case 
of extensions now notified, the measures had not been sufficiently liberalised. Whi le the international 
context regarding steel was complex, each case needed to be investigated carefully on its own 
merits. EU asked Morocco to abide by the WTO rules, including the requirement for progressive and 
continued liberalisation.  
79.  Morocco  stated t hat the SG instrument was used in a particularly difficult international context, 
which did not leave much margin of manoeuvre to deal with the imminent threat. Morocco explained 
as follows regarding the issue of liberalization. For cold -rolled sheets, the  ad valorem  duty would 
gradually be lowered. For wire rods, the quota provided would be increased by 10% each year. 
Morocco recalled that it had engaged in consultations with the EU and confirmed that it was carrying 
out all its investigations and implemen tations of measures in conformity with the Agreement.  
2.18  Morocco – Paper in Rolls and Reams (G/SG/N/8/MAR/5 – G/SG/N/10/MAR/5 – 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/5)  
80.  There were no comments or questions raised specifically under this item.  
2.19  Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/7/PHL/9 – G/SG/N/8/PHL/10 – 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/11)  
81.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.20  Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/S G/N/6/PHL/12)  
82.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.21  Philippines – Float Glass (G/SG/N/6/PHL/13)  
83.  The EU was concerned with the Philippines' frequent recourse to SG measures for the same 
product, float glass, for the period from 2002 to 2012 without interruption. The SG instrument was 
meant for exceptional or unanticipated situations to provide temporary rel ief for the industry to 
adjust and was not meant to be permanent. In this case, if the industry was unable to adjust after 
ten years of imposition of SG measures, other causes may exist. At any rate, the existence of an 
overall impairment of the industry w as not shown. Furthermore, a certain country was responsible 
for 85% of the imports, and the same country was also responsible for the rise in imports observed 
in 2013. In contrast, all the other countries in the world, including the EU, accounted for less  than 
5% of the imports, and there was no evidence of price undercutting for these countries. In this 
context, other instruments like anti -dumping or countervailing measure would have been more 
appropriate. The EU asked that the investigation be terminated .  
84.  Philippines  requested written version of the comments to refer to the capital.  
2.22  South Africa – Threaded Fasteners of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/7)  
85.  South Africa explained that the investigation was currently ongoing and requested that 
comments be sent d irectly to the investigation authority. Comments heard at this meeting would 
also be forwarded to the investigation authority, and so South Africa asked that comments be 
submitted in writing.  
86.  The EU had concerns with this investigation. First, authorities should provide meaningful and 
consistent data relating to economic indicators to allow for an objective analysis of the situation of 
the domestic industry. Second, a more meaningful causal link analysis should be carried out. Third, 
the increase in imports  was predominantly from one or two countries, and therefore, should be 
addressed through a more targeted trade defence instrument, such as anti -dumping. The EU asked 
South Africa not to impose unwarranted measures.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.23  South Africa – Other Screws Fully Thread ed with Hexagon Heads Made of Steel 
(G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5 – G/SG/N/10/ZAF/4 – G/SG/N/11/ZAF/4/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/10/ZAF/4/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/11/ZAF/3/Suppl.2)  
87.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.24  Thailand – Hot Rol led Steel Flat Products with Certain Amounts of Alloying Elements 
(G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/14/THA/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Suppl.4 – G/SG/N/14/THA/2/Suppl.3)  
88.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.25  Turkey – Yarn of Nylon or Other Polyamides (G/SG/N/6/TUR/25)  
89.  The EU had concerns with this investigation. It particularly referred to the absence of unforeseen 
developments and to fluctuation in imports. If there was an increase in imports, it was a rather 
gradual increase. Further , the SG instrument was not the appropriate instrument, as the increase in 
imports was mainly caused by two sources. In addition, the domestic industry did not suffer serious 
injury. The EU asked Turkey not to impose unwarranted SG measures.  
90.  Korea  also ha d concerns with this investigation. It was not convinced that there was any "recent, 
sudden and significant and sharp increase" in imports. Further, injury to the domestic industry had 
not been sufficiently identified. Korea requested Turkey to terminate t he investigation without 
introducing any SG measure.  
91.  Turkey  stated that this investigation was initiated upon receipt of a petition from the domestic 
industry and based on evidence contained therein. Drawing from the information available, there 
had been a n absolute and relative increase in imports. A public hearing would be announced shortly, 
and all views and information submitted would be taken into consideration.  
2.26  Ukraine – Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/6/UKR/11 /Suppl.1)  
92.  The EU had concerns with this investigation. First, only 20 days were provided upon publication 
of initiation, and it had only received the notification after 11 days of initiation of the review 
investigation. This extremely short deadline was at  odds with the usual practice of Ukrainian 
authorities to allow 60 days for submission of comments. In terms of the information provided, a 
large amount of information was kept confidential and only presented in the form of indexes, thus 
making it difficul t for interested parties to understand the actual situation. The EU requested Ukraine 
to disclose more meaningful data, and to allow interested parties to adequately exercise their right 
of defence. In addition, the legal basis for the application of the o riginal SG measure, imposed 
in 2016, was unclear. While Ukraine's Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal ruled that the 
measure applied was different from the measures set out in the WTO SG Agreement, the Ministry of 
Trade and Economic Development  of Ukraine claimed that the measure adopted was in accordance 
with WTO rules, and continued to notify further procedural steps.  
93.  Ukraine  understood that it had responded to the questions posed by the EU. The measure at 
issue was a measure in accordance wi th the WTO SG Agreement and with Ukraine's Law. Ukraine 
further noted that it had also clarified the particularities of the power and structure of its judicial 
system.  
2.27  United States - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (G/L/1293 – G/SG/202) – Joint 
communication of Thailand and the United States  
94.  Japan  understood that the product exclusion process was still ongoing and stated that it would 
closely follow the process. It requested the US to conduct the process in a timely manner and 
appropriately exclude  products under review.  
95.  The US confirmed that the product exclusion process was still ongoing. The results of the review 
would be notified in due course.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.28  United States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.1 and 
G/L/1292 – G/SG/201)  
96.  Korea  stated that the SG measure was not consistent with the relevant WTO rules. However, 
Korea would not delve into details as the case had been bought to a dispute. Instead, Korea referred 
to the mid -term review currently in progress, and requested the US to wi thdraw the measure. It 
also asked the US to take into consideration two aspects in the course of the review, namely (i) that 
serious injury which could have justified the SG measure may no longer exist given the positive 
signals evident in the domestic ind ustry; and (ii) that the US consumers would be the ultimate 
victims of this measure.  
97.  The US stated that the mid -term review process was ongoing and encouraged any interested 
parties to provide comments.   
2.29  Viet Nam – Monosodium Glutamate (G/L/1286 – G/SG/N/13/VNM/2) – Results of 
Mid-Term Review  
98.  There were no comments or questions raised at the me eting.  
2.30  Viet Nam – Certain Semi -Finished and Finished Products of Alloy and Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/L/1287 – G/SG/N/13/VNM/3) – Results of Mid -Term Review  
99.  Japan  stated that Viet Nam was conducting a "circumvention" investigation. This investigation 
had not been  notified to the Committee. Japan was concerned about the implication of such 
"circumvention" investigation. There was no textual basis in the Agreement for a circumvention 
investigation. "Circumvention" in the anti -dumping context was considered to be a b usiness 
behaviour to escape anti -dumping duties. That was not relevant to SG measures which were to be 
applied "irrespective of its source". Japan was of the view that a new SG investigation should be 
conducted. Japan was concerned that introducing a "circ umvention" investigation in the context of 
safeguards could undermine the basic principle of SG measures being emergency actions. Japan 
would pay close attention to the matter.  
100.  Viet Nam  stated that the investigation was still under way.  
101.  The Chair  reminde d delegations that any questions for which written responses were requested  
should be submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 20  May 2019. 
Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this  meeting, should 
be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 11 June 2019. As with legislative notifications, any 
unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the next meeting.  
102.  The Committee  took note of the statements made.  
3  MOROCCO'S SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATION ON COA TED WOOD BOARD (ITEM  
REQUESTED BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION)  
103.  The EU had concerns with Morocco's ongoing investigation on coated wood board. First, the 
increase in imports was not due to unforeseen developments, as it only r eflected the increase in 
domestic demand. The existence of a causal link was doubtful. Second, the additional imports 
originated from one country, and therefore, the use of the anti -dumping instrument would be more 
appropriate for this case. The EU had rai sed these concerns in many instances. The EU asked 
Morocco to terminate the investigation without imposing unwarranted measures.  
104.  Morocco  stated that the investigation was still ongoing.  
105.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
4  NOTIFICATIONS OF RE COMMENDATIONS TO IMP OSE A MEASURE  
106.  The Chair explained that an explanatory note and the revised compilation of relevant 
notifications were made available to Members on 2 April 2019. He recalled three points. First, the 
discussion was pertinent only to those  Members that had a specific decision -making structure on SG G/SG/M/55  
 
- 14 - 
 
  where one part of the government communicates to another part of the same government 
recommending that the latter take a decision related to imposition of a SG measure. Second, he did 
not expect Members to begin a debate on the interpretation of the Agreement. He understood that 
Members sometimes had diverging views on interpretative matters. And finally, the purpose of this 
discussion was not to provide an opportunity to criticize other Members' practices, but rather to 
identify best practice.  
107.  Turkey  explained that in its country, the Minister of Trade made a recommendation to the 
President on taking a decision to impose or extend definitive SG measures. Thus, the unit conducting 
the investigation was different from the authority that has the power to  decide on imposition of the 
measure. So far, Turkey had submitted notification of the measures proposed by the Minister of 
Trade. However, to strengthen transparency, Turkey would hereafter notify both the proposed 
measures and the definitive measures imp osed, in two consecutive notifications.  
108.  The US expressed support for the Chair's effort to guide Members on this specific issue without 
diving into the nature of the obligations in Article 12 of the Agreement. The US agreed that it was 
up to each Member w ith such a system to decide as to the way the information should be provided. 
However, it also found it helpful for Members to have guidance about how this information could be 
provided. The US was open to further discussions on this issue.  
109.  New Zealand  stated that this was a timely initiative to improve transparency.  
110.  Australia  also stated that this was a timely initiative to examine improvements to notifications 
and to ensure full transparency. It would contribute to the broader WTO discussion on improvin g 
notifications and transparency. Australia acknowledged that Members had different systems and 
processes and that the Agreement itself did not provide details on this issue. Thus, the focus of the 
discussion should be on improving transparency by encourag ing notifications which clarify whether 
a measure has been imposed. In Australia, one entity conducted investigations and made 
recommendations. Another body took the decisions on the imposition of the measure. Australia 
expressed support for further inform al discussions on notification formats with a view to developing 
guidelines regarding this issue.  
111.  Canada  supported the Chair's initiative to improve transparency. It explained that its recent 
notification G/SG/N/8/CAN/3 included both the findings of its i nvestigation authority regarding injury 
and its recommendation to the Government to impose a final SG measure. If and when a decision 
was taken on the imposition of a final SG measure, Canada would notify the decision, the details of 
the measure, and the d ate of implementation.  
112.  Singapore  also expressed support for these discussions and looked forward to greater 
transparency in the notifications made under the Agreement.  
113.  Philippines  stated that it was always useful to notify a recommendation or proposal to impose 
a SG measure, as it provides the private sector with sufficient time to prepare. Even though the 
Agreement did not explicitly require such a notification, such information could be voluntarily 
inserted into notifications. That would increase transpa rency. In this context, the practice of certain 
Members to include such information in their Article 12.1(b) notifications on finding of serious injury 
was helpful and could be a workable venue for such notifications at this stage, without amending 
the Agr eement. Philippines also explained that in its national context, the agency finding serious 
injury and recommending the measure was not the same as the agency ordering or imposing the 
measure.  
114.  China  appreciated the efforts of the Chair. China was of the v iew that the issue on how to 
notify the measure in a transparent manner was a technical issue. The issue of what was to be 
notified is subject to WTO rules as well as to the Member's laws and regulations. China noted that 
there was a lack of clarity as to whether it was necessary to notify the proposed measure. China 
requested Members to notify the proposed measures, before definitive measures, with more 
information.  
115.  Chile appreciated the various opinions put forward by Member and efforts to improve 
transp arency and was looking forward to further discussions on this topic.  G/SG/M/55  
 
- 15 - 
 
  116.  Korea  supported the discussion on improving transparency in notifying SG measures. Given 
that the laws and regulations of Members were different, it preferred not to impose a particular 
method of notification.  
117.  Pakistan  encouraged more transparency in notifications and expressed support for continued 
discussions to address ambiguities.  
118.  Indonesia  explained that under its system, the investigating authority was only required to 
conduct the  investigation and did not take the decision on impositions. The investigating authority 
made a recommendation to the Minister of Trade, while the decision to impose a final measure, 
including its level of duty and duration, was made by the Minister of Tra de. The measure was then 
implemented by the Minister of Finance.  
119.  Morocco  wished to explain its system. Under its system, there was a difference in the date of 
the decision and the date of publication of results of the investigation. Measures were applied 
through Joint Decrees, which needed to go through certain procedures. The refore, when the 
investigating authority notified the results of the investigation to the Committee, it usually still did 
not know the date of the imposition of the measure. Under Morocco's system, the imposition of 
measures took effect after a certain per iod of time from the publication of the results. The 
investigating authority could indicate the date of the imposition of the measure, but this did not 
occur in all cases. Morocco would continue to examine this matter from the viewpoint of good 
practices.  
120.  Hong Kong, China  stated that although it did not use the SG instrument, it was open to 
discussions to enhance transparency and identify best practices. It was not satisfactory for Members 
to only submit notifications of proposals to impose SG measures wit hout following up with a 
notification on imposition of final measures.  
121.  Chinese Taipei  also stated that in monitoring SG notifications, it often faced difficulties in 
ascertaining whether a measure had been imposed or not. Thus, it welcomed this discussion .  
122.  The Chair noted that there was support, at least no opposition, to the idea that Members 
should be encouraged to make two notifications: first, informing that a recommendation had been 
made; and second, informing what had become of that recommendation. He would request the 
incoming Chair to think how to continue this discussion.  
123.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  DISCUSSION GROUP REG ARDING SAFEGUARD PRO CEEDINGS (ITEM REQUE STED BY 
12 MEMBERS7) 
124.  The Chair explained that this item was placed o n the agenda at the request of the delegations 
of Australia, Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese  Taipei, Singapore, 
Ukraine and the US.  
125.  The US reminded Members that the informal discussion group meeting would take place after  
the present meeting. The discussion was open to all Members. The idea behind this discussion group 
was to provide a broader perspective than the one in normal Committee meetings, removed from 
discussions of individual cases, and to focus more on each othe r's experiences and to learn from 
each other. The topics for the day's discussion were: (i) duration of measures, and (ii) mid -term 
reviews.  
126.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
                                                
7 Australia, Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, Korea, New  Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Singapore, 
Ukraine and the US . G/SG/M/55  
 
- 16 - 
 
  6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1  Statement Regarding an Investigation by the member  countries of the  Eurasian 
Economic Union and by Turkey – Item Requested by Korea  
127.  Korea  referred to two sets of notifications of initiation of investigation on certain steel products: 
one by the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union8 and the othe r by Turkey.9 Korea had 
expressed its concerns over these investigations at the Committee meeting of October 2018, 
pointing out that the necessary requirements to initiate SG investigations had not been met. Korea 
requested the member countries of the Eura sian Economic Union and Turkey to terminate these 
investigations without any final SG measures.  
128.  Turkey  explained that its investigation was initiated on 27 April 2018 and a provisional SG 
measure was imposed on 17 October 2018. The investigation was still  ongoing and would be finalised 
by the end of July 2019. All comments submitted by interested parties would be given due 
consideration.  
129.  Russia  explained that the investigation was still underway. All interested parties were provided 
the opportunity to par ticipate in the investigation. The result of the investigation was expected to 
be published before the end of July 2019.  
6.2  Statement Regarding an Investigation by Turkey  – Item Requested by Russia  
130.  Russia  also raised concerns about Turkey's investigation int o certain steel products, as 
discussed in the previous item. More specifically, it had concerns with the provisional SG measure 
imposed. The provisional measure had been imposed in the absence of a proper determination of 
increase in imports and of serious  injury. Imports did not demonstrate any increase in absolute 
terms, and even indicated a decrease. Furthermore, market shares and domestic production were 
stable, while consumption, domestic sales and profitability had increased. In this context, a 
provis ional measure was not warranted. Russia asked that the investigation be terminated without 
an imposition of a final measure.  
131.  Turkey  referred to its responses to Korea on the same notification and stated that it would 
take these comments into account.  
6.3  Deadline for placing items on the airgram for the meeting – Statement by the Chair  
132.  The Chair  explained that the draft annotated agenda indicates the deadline for placing items 
on the airgram of each Committee meeting. This deadline is set taking into consideration the fact 
that the airgram has to be issued in all three WTO languages at the same t ime. More specifically, it 
takes into account the amount of time necessary for the translation services to finalize its work, the 
documents control staff to check the final airgram and to have it posted online in not less than 
10 calendar days prior to the  meeting. Thus, if a Member requested an additional agenda item 
immediately before the circulation of the airgram, that could create confusion and even delays in 
the issuance of the airgram. Thus, the Chair urged Members to observe that deadline for placin g 
items on the airgram, which is in general, approximately 2 working days before the airgram is 
circulated, or, in other words 12 days before the actual meeting.  
6.4  Notification Handbook – Statement by the Chair  
133.  The Chair informed the Members that the Secret ariat had updated the Handbook of notification 
obligations. The Secretariat often received queries from Geneva -based delegates as well as 
capital -based experts on how exactly to notify certain safeguard actions. This Handbook is found on 
the WTO's webpage under the topic "Safeguards". It was a stand -alone document and did not bear 
a document symbol.  
134.  The Committee took note  of all the statements made under Other Business.  
                                                
8 See G/SG/N/6/ARM/3, G/SG/N/6/KAZ/1, G/SG/N/6/KGZ/7  and G/SG/N/6/RUS/5 . 
9 See G/SG/N/6/TUR/24 . G/SG/M/55  
 
- 17 - 
 
  7  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  
135.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 21 October 2019, with the exact 
date being confirmed later.  
136.  Canada  requested that the date of the next SG meeting be changed from the week of 
21 October 2019 to the week of 4 November 2019.  
137.  The EU, Korea and India  supported the request of Canada.  
138.  The Chair clarified that the timing of the meetings of the Committee, that is, the last week of 
April and last week of October each year, was not decided arbitrarily, but rather was decided by the 
Anti-Dumping Committee in May 1995. In May 1997, this Commi ttee decided to follow that timing. 
Having made this clarification, the Chair noted that Members could decide otherwise. The Chair 
proposed that the Committee decide ad referendum  to hold the meeting in the week of 
4 November  2019. By ad referendum, he mea nt two conditions : (i) approval by the capital of each 
Member ; and (ii) no objection being raised at the upcoming meetings of the Anti -Dumping 
Committee and the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
139.  The Committee so decided  on an ad referend um basis.10 
8  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
140.  The Chair stated that the election of officers for the position of Chair and Vice -Chair of the 
Committee would not be dealt with at this meeting, as consultations were still underway.11 
141.  Finally, the outgoing Chair thanked the  Members and the Secretariat for their cooperation and 
support during his chairmanship.  
__________  
 
 
 
                                                
10 On 9 May 2019 , the outgoing chairs of the Anti-Dumping Committee , the Subsidies  Commi ttee, and 
this Committee jointly sent a fax to all Members confirming that no objection was received. Subsequently on 15 
July 2019, the newly -appointed chairs of the three Committees jointly sent another fax to all Members informing 
that due to a conflict with the meetings of the Negotiation Group on Rules (fisheries negotiation) they propose 
that the meetings of the three Committees be held during the week of 18  November  2019. No objection was 
received.  
11 On 6 June 2019, a fax was sent  to all Members informing that as a result of the consultations in the 
Council for Trade in Goods, Ms Katherine Dellar was nominated to chair this Committee. No objection was 
received. On 22 July 2019, a fax was sent to all Members informing that the Chair  (Ms Dellar) proposed that 
Mr Madi Sarsenov will be deemed, absent any objection, to be elected as the vice -chair.  No objection was 
received.